Tactical vs. Freeform Combat: How do you blend it?

[CleverNickName]

There is a lot of talk about 4E being "too tactical" for a roleplaying game. Movement and abilities being described in "squares," for example. Some people like the control it gives them over combat. Others think it detracts from the story, ruining the suspension of disbelief.

Obviously, in today's gaming industry you cannot have one without the other. A roleplaying game needs rules, and those rules need detailed descriptions if they are to remain fun for everyone involved. Nobody is saying that tactical wargaming rules are bad, and nobody is saying that freeform combat is bad either.

I am just curious...if 4th Edition were a bar, "FREEFORM COMBAT" and "TACTICAL WARGAME" were two different liquors, and you were the bartender, how would you set the mix?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I couldn't understand the poll. We stick pretty close to RAW, but we don't use minis.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

50/50, essentially as written. Typically roleplay between encounters, becomes tactiacl wargame once initiative is rolled, and returns to roleplay when the last creature falls ... with some "roleplay" in the fight depending upon the character and player.

 

[Xethreau]

We are 50:50. Except there is not "facing" in 3.5 that I am aware of.

Anyway, IMO, battles are for tactics, with bursts of RP, and non-encounters are for RP, with bursts of mechanics.

 

[CleverNickName]

We are 50:50. Except there is not "facing" in 3.5 that I am aware of.

Anyway, IMO, battles are for tactics, with bursts of RP, and non-encounters are for RP, with bursts of mechanics.

I checked and you're right, there isn't rules for facing in 3.5 Edition. Which should tell you something about how much of the 3.5E mini rules I use at my table.

 

[hong]

Pls ppl, "freeform combat" != "roleplay". kthxb

 

[ruleslawyer]

What hong said, minus 1337-speak.

We follow all the rules, but I'd consider our campaign pretty RP-centric. I'd love to play without minis entirely, but I've found (since 1e) that discussing where everyone is relative to everyone else sucks up time and kills the mood I'm setting. Having minis/counters and a map on the table doesn't get in the way of colorful descriptions and RPing.

 

[CleverNickName]

I couldn't understand the poll. We stick pretty close to RAW, but we don't use minis.

Same here, except we use minis for flanking and AoO. We pretty much just break out the minis when combat starts, and put them away soon after. How does your table handle the flanking and AoO rules without minis?

 

[CleverNickName]

What hong said, minus 1337-speak.

We follow all the rules, but I'd consider our campaign pretty RP-centric. I'd love to play without minis entirely, but I've found (since 1e) that discussing where everyone is relative to everyone else sucks up time and kills the mood I'm setting. Having minis/counters and a map on the table doesn't get in the way of colorful descriptions and RPing.

I agree, but I didn't know how else to describe the opposite of Tactical Wargame without saying something like "ANIT-tactical wargame," and that wouldn't be very fair either.

I guess I should have called it "Freeform" vs. "Tactical." Alas, I cannot edit polls...does anyone have el_remmen on speed dial?

 

[Aaron L]

OK, how do I vote when we use all of the rules, but never use any miniatures? We use flanking and AoOs and everything else, but the most visual representation we ever use is s few hastily drawn sketches to show positions at the beginning of combat, and the rest of the combat we keep in our heads (where we think it belongs.)


We view combat as an adjunct to roleplaying, and don't separate "roleplaying time" from "break out the battlemaps for chess-like battle time."